U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases

The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:

Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.

The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.

Wow

[by Anonymous Coward]

Folks -- if they don't have enough intelligence to invade the right country then I doubt they have enough intelligence to monitor bank records. They can't even manage to look after their own federal spending, why do they need to look after mine?

Re:Wow

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

They had the intelligence, and the power to cherrypick, to invade the country, Iraq, that was right for them. The Bush administration is the Iran/Contra administration [wikipedia.org] . All these people made their bones in the 1980s CIA/NSA cocaine [google.com] and guns [google.com] conspiracy [google.com]. That hijacked American foreign policy to wage secret wars in Central America [google.com]. To raise money for secret wars elsewhere, like in Africa [google.com], and Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan [google.com]. With secret Saudi funding and Iranian funding. As seed money for robbing the Savings and Loans of over a $TRILLION [google.com] (in 1980s dollars: our GDP was 1/4 what it is today).

These same people, like Poindexter, [google.com]Negroponte [google.com], Bolton [google.com] and so many others, wrench our country into invading Iraq to the [google.com]benefit of Saudi Arabia and Iran [google.com], giving the NSA and CIA powers previously forbidden [google.com] by our constititional democratic republic. While spying on all Americans [google.com] for the political power that ensures their corporate backers will make all the money they want, forever.

They're pulling it off. As measured by $TRILLIONS in profits [google.com] and unlimited power [google.com], killing thousands around the world and leaving our country to rot. How can we possibly deny that they're smart, that they're doing it all on purpose, that it's malice, even evil, that is driving all their actions? Because the truth is too much to admit, especially since we like to believe what we see in the media: the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.

Re: Wow

[cluckshot (658931)]

They are not fools. (Mods if you don't like the truth just comment against it or get a life) The guys who are doing this monitoring have a full plan to monitor all data that can be collected on every person on the earth. I know this because I have read the Requests for Proposals from the various agencies involved. There can be only one logical conclusion of this effort. These guys want to establish a world wide Gestapo or SS. They intend to do so with impunity. They will do just as the NAZI's did, and cover their mafactor status as being "anti-terrorist".

For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.

What is developing is obvious in another arena. George Bush has not issued a single Veto since he became president. This is because his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means that he couches as "Anti-Terrorist Efforts" actually is used as extortion against US Senators and Representatives who dare vote against his plans. This is why all measures always pass with at least a minimal margin no matter what. He doesn't care to eliminate the Congress as he controls it by this means.

My US Senator Jeff Sessions has come under serious pressure trying to destroy his career as a US Senator because he spoke up against the Immigration lies that were being spread. The cost he has paid has been very high. In an election he will face the Republican Party Machine trying to destroy his reputation and take away the money from contributors. Supposing you dare contribute a significant amount of money, you may find your business contracts with the government suspended if you have any. You may find your reputation destroyed by the data they developed in this mass spying effort. The senator himself will find every detail of his life made public to try to ruin him.

This is a direct threat to the very existence of a free people and a freely elected government. It makes the President of the United States of America and his team the chief terrorists in the world. It makes without doubt the danger very high. This is why we in the USA live in a continual state of "Terrorist Alerts" and other mechanisms designed to keep us sturred up and always afraid. This paranoid state they have us living in is making the whole world think we are insane. The fact of our sanity being in question because of this is becoming all of the discussion around the world. These people are up to no good in the White House. DO NOT MARK me as part of those who oppose the Republican Party generally. I support and go to meetings. I am a long standing life long Republican. These men in the White House only claim to be Republicans. I know most decent Republicans oppose what is going on.

What for example have they done to Preserve Protect or Defend the Constitution of the United States of America? (Their oath of office) I am a supporter of a strong America and I definitely support the efforts to put down Islamic Radical Terrorism. The efforts of these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America at time of war. Yes their actions are TREASONA

Re: Wow

[SillyNickName4me (760022)]

First of all, I do agree about the danger you are warning against, but I also think you are not entirely appreciating that you fell into the trap yourself as well.

For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.

If you actually look at the 9/11 attacks as well as to other similar situations, you'll find that the only terrorists you are going to catch at the border are those trying to flee the country afterward, and even that is extremely unlikely. You'd also see that those who planned and executed the attacks were not illegal foreigners. Hence, similar to the situation you pointed out yourself, such actions would have virtually zero effect on terrorism.

All the screaming and arguing about illegal immigrants is really yet another way to divert attention away from what is really happening.

For everybody who thinks this guy is paranoid...

[by Anonymous Coward]

...I think he's paranoid too.

But answer me this: what part of what he describes would be difficult for the USA government to do? Is it a good idea to simply let them have the power to do these things and assume they'll never exercise it?

There's an old saying...

[Civil_Disobedient (261825)]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Re:For everybody who thinks this guy is paranoid..

[radtea (464814)]

Is it a good idea to simply let them have the power to do these things and assume they'll never exercise it?

No. It is a fundamental law of human behaviour: All power gets used.

If you grant power to someone that power will eventually be used. History suggests sooner rather than later. Things you'd think would never happen in a million years have a way of being done well ahead of schedule. And any power will be used to the benefit of the people wielding it unless there are obvious negative consequences in doing so. Secret power is absolute power, because it can be used for anything with no consequences to the wielders.

And for anyone still using the "you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong" line, I would like to point out that that line requires assuming that the organs of the state Never Make Mistakes. Good luck with that.

Re: Wow

[Memnos (937795)]

The parent comment brings up some salient points. I unfortunately believe that his/her points only tangentially address the real problems we face now. Our nation and most importantly our government is showing all of the signs of age, as in biological age. It no longer functions effectively, but that is among the least of our problems, because the intent of Adams and Jefferson was that it would not. However, the problem is that is does not function effectively in representing the body politic. That was never intended. Our government was intended by those who wrote the Constitution ("Oh God, not that pain in the ass document again" as many in the Legislative and Executive branches say) to be inefficient in imposing its will on the populace. Back to aging, our society and culture seems to have bought into the idea that everything will be fine if only someone ELSE can take care of it for us. We are far too risk-averse, and on our way to proving Ben Franklin's quote about trading liberty for security true in the worst way. It is us, as a people, who bear the burden of responsibility for this. And it can bring us to our collective knees if it does not do us worse. My family came to this country long ago (about 175 years) and I cannot imagine my Grandparents, to say nothing of my Great-Grandparents, standing by and letting our rights be chivvied away as they are now. But the fact is that we do. More specifically, in the future we are going to face increasing encroachments on our right to be left alone, because of a fundamental flaw in jurisprudence. We can only expect privacy if it is "reasonable" in the current societal context, and with technology marching on, reasonable privacy is an ever shrinking circle. Could you imagine in the last century that you could not expect privacy in your own back yard. Well now Predator drones are flying overhead, so you cannot. It will go much farther than this. My bitch about this is done for now. I would only quote from one more free than I: "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their quick brown foxes running over lazy dogs and jumping away to the aid of their party." If we do not wake up and take the phrase "by the people and for the people" seriously, then we deserve what we get. I can find work anywhere, so what I'll do, if all is lost, is get away from this national and cultural self-destruction. Best of luck to the rest of you.

p.s.

[mrraven (129238)]

Hint Ronald McDonald has killed quite literally thousands as times as many people as Osama Bin Laden,
chew on that for a while.

Re: Wow

[Ash Vince (602485)]

The CIA and NSA did see 911 coming.

It's just that if it had not happened then the US public wouldn't have been so tolerant of their own sons and daughters dieing in countries like Afganistan and Iraq while trying to secure the rest of the worlds oil reserves.

In Afganistan they wanted to build a pipeline that the taliban never would have agreed to. In Iraq, well the largest oil field in the world speaks for itself.

Just look at what was happening to US defense expenditure before 911. It was going down as the majority of the population realised that there was no big bad communist Russia to fight anymore so there was no need for aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.

Now we have terrorists, an enemy who can never go bust like Russia did. And if you kill a terrorist, 10 more just spring up their place. It is a war the US can never win. Which obviously suits the people who make from money from war by selling defense equipment to the US govt.

The NSA and CIA let planes crash into the twin towers and that conveniently empty (for redecoration apparantly) wing of the pentagon. They did this as they knew it would result in massive increase in their budgets.

And before you dismiss this as a troll, just think what you might ignore if you were looking at redundancy from somewhere you had worked for 20 years. From a career you enjoyed, possibly with no other hope of employment in the same field. After all, who hires people with a 20 year gap on their CV which they are not allowed to discuss for reasons of national security.

If all I had to do to protect it was look the other way briefly, I might just do it if I had a wife and 3 kids to support.

But herein lies the problem, the people on the other side are more desperate the we are. Most of Iraq has a much lower standard of living than the US, the population is on the edge of starvation, disease is rife and on top of that the country is a war zone where you might just catch a stray bullet or bit of shrapnel and die. Now on top of that only thing your country has of value to trade with (oil) is in the hands of foriegn companies (the only ones with the expertise to extract it) who are allied with the foriegn invaders. Try putting yourself in this position and think of how determined you might be to throw those foriegn invaders out.

But my final point is more disturbing than all of this. We now NEED the CIA and NSA. We need them to stop some super pissed of terrorist obtaining a nuclear device from Pakistan (Definately have nukes unlike Iran) or Iran (Maybe have nukes but definately dont like us) and blowing us up with it. All they have to do is smuggle the nuke onto a plane bound for the US from some third world country.

Re: Wow

[SillyNickName4me (760022)]

Being taken seriously by the /. crowd isn't really high on my list anyway.

If you don't come up with anything usefull, then indeed you won't be taken seriously, not just by the slashdot crowd, but by anyone who has some capacity of independent thought.

That said, I am not the slashdot crowd, I am an individual slashdot reader putting up a question to you. Why the fuck are you posting here if you don't want to debate anything to begin with?

Besides, I suspect that I'm not in the minority with my viewpoint. I'm just not afraid to post non-AC.

I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

So, are you capable of independent thought and making an argument or are you just one of the mindless sheep.

Re: Wow

[heinousjay (683506)]

I'm not speaking to the original point, but

I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.

I'm Calling Bullshit

[Memnos (937795)]

I am a physicist and I consult on national vulnerability, and I can tell you that a terrorist will not come through an airport with any radionuclides. That is patently ridiculous. What is far more likely to happen is that someone with a bunch of money will find someone in Russia with little to no money (who formerly worked for the Strategic Rocket Forces) to provide them with a working (if decrepit) tactical nuke. Then, they would have some shipping company bring the container to New York or Miami and set it off. That's just to let you know about what OUR nightmares are -- and in the future, post about what you know.

Corporate advantage?

[Manip (656104)]

Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?

If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?

We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.

Re:Corporate advantage?

[houghi (78078)]

Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?

It already happend. Echelon was used to get Boeing an advatage over Airbus.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sislock.htm [converge.org.nz]
http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Cons piracies/Echelon/echelon.htm [meta-religion.com]
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2000/07/irp-000724-ech elon.htm [fas.org]
http://tinyurl.com/zuxan [tinyurl.com] (google link)

Re:Corporate advantage?

[Tx (96709)]

Oh, come on. We all know that the US government subsidizes Boeing and the like through military contracts and the like, so get off your frigging high horse. At least in Europe we're up front about subsidies, rather than the hypocritical US position of paying lip service to free market principles, while being protectionist as hell in reality.

Re:Corporate advantage?

[Thangodin (177516)]

Which would be great if American companies like Haliburton didn't maintain shell subsidiaries in places like the Caiman Islands. These subsidiaries are apparently not bound by American law, even though they amount to a post office box whose contents are forwarded to the States. This is how Haliburton got away with dealing with Iran while it was illegal to do so, even selling them centrifuges used in their nuclear project.

In any case, the cozy relationship between the Saudi Royal family and American business and government amounts to bribe of a different type--information and contacts. George Bush Sr. worked for the Saudis while still receiving intelligence briefings, a right that all former presidents have but which has always been waived. Bush Sr. was the first former president to insist on getting them. You can bet that Bush Jr. will be getting them too--the President who walked hand in hand with Prince Bandar. And now those intelligence reports will include the banking information of competing companies. The money to be made here makes simple bribes miniscule by comparison. Not even Airbus is in the position to offer the kind of money that can be made by investing a billion dollars in a small company that is about to win a massive government contract.

Which means that even after Bush is out of office, he will still have his hand in the federal pie, and will be able to sell a piece of that pie to the highest bidder. Not bad for a spoiled dilletante with no talent for business. We're stuck with the bastard till the day he dies.

I don't know what's worse...

[Lobo (10944)]

The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[I am Jack's username (528712)]

The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.
- Lobo (10944)

I can understand how people who agree with the Democratic/Republican platforms can vote for them - I fundamentally disagree with their platforms, but I know lots of folk think it's a-okay.

I can understand people who who've never even compared the platforms of the other parties voting Democrat/Republican:

"On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
- So long, and thanks for all the fish - Douglas Adams

What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral. It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same. Sure, if you're old you might not have to deal with the end result, but even then, do you really not care about the people coming after you?

Don't you want to do the right thing? Even if the party you vote for looses, doing the right thing is surely better than actually voting for the Democrats/Republicans?:

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- Eugene Victor Debs

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Qzukk (229616)]

What have the future generations done for us that we should care for them? Fuck'em.

Decide which discount nursing home you'll spend the rest of your life in, for one.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Greyfox (87712)]

I do that at the state and local level. At the Felderal level it's a little too much like throwing my vote away for my taste. I usually just vote against the incumbant unless they've done something to give me a warm fuzzy. It's still throwing your vote away (98% of the time the incumbant will win) and if they lose because of my vote the Senate is losing all that experience and possibly seats on comittees will have to change, but I don't think any one person should remain too long in the corrupting influence of Congresss anyway. If I had my way, 1 or 2 terms would be the limit.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[jusdisgi (617863)]

Libertarian the word has some nice ideas attached to it. The active political party identified as the Libertarian party is full of crazies, or at least, really extreme viewpoints.

No, you've got it backwards. Libertarian, the ideal, is an extreme viewpoint. Furthermore, its basic tenants (government is always inefficient, the unregulated free market will work smoothly and provide for everyone's best interest, individuals can provide for their own security) are demonstrably false. There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[SillyNickName4me (760022)]

Government is always inefficient when doing things private companies have been doing better for years

Government is always inefficient in a working republic or representative democracy, it is that way by design and for good reasons. I could explain it here, but it would be a bit lengthy. Instead of doing that, I challange you to think about why this is and why this is in fact a very good thing.

Secretly?

[MarkByers (770551)]

It's not so secret any more!

Anyway...

Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.

Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Re:Secretly?

[Rick Zeman (15628)]

Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.

Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?

In the case of the NSA tapping the phone switches, the threat was that of "future government contracts and renegotiations" which was/is CONSIDERABLE $$$. Since Google doesn't have the same business model (lots of $$ from lots of sources instead of lots of $$ from few sources), they had the flexibility (and dare I say it...freedom) to speak out loud.

Re:Secretly?

[Broken Bottle (84695)]

[blockquote] Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)?[/blockquote]

Given the Bush administration's behavior regarding these sorts of activities, likely the companies are threatened with federal prosecution if they reveal the attempt because it would the "terrorists" hints about how we're trying to track them down. It's more than convenient that these hints to the "terrorists" are also hints to the public that the White House is trampling our civil rights and evading oversight YET AGAIN.

Re:Secretly?

[Broken Bottle (84695)]

"Do your reasearch and don't believe everything you read in the papers. This program DID have congretional oversight and is perfectly leagal as a practical extention of the Patriot Act."

Show me the article that verifies this claim. The interview I heard yesterday with Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levy mentioned nothing of the sort. This program, like a startling number of Bush's post 9/11 "anti terrorist" intelligence initiatives, has NO court oversight. Levy described a situation in which SWIFT agents and "an outside auditing firm" could monitor database searches in real time and could halt the search if they felt it was suspect or needed further justification from the government. That's it. If your name is on a list of suspected terrorist / collaborators, correctly or incorrectly, the the White House has given itself the privledge of sifting through your financial data. And your phone calls. And god knows what else we don't know about. And it all happens without the courts being aware.

Who puts a stop to programs like this if it's being abused? The "gang of 8" senators that had been informed about the domestic wiretapping program have admitted that the reports they get about that program don't go into any great detail. Are we just supposed to trust the Bush White House to say, "Gee, we've sepped over the line here, please shut us down?" These are the same people that selectively chose intellegence reports that supported their desire to invade Iraq. Once they got their, they retroactively changes their justifications for being there and then capped it all by saying "Well, is it a bad thing that Sahdam is gone? Would you prefer he be in power?"

This is a democracy with explicit checks and ballances between the three branches of government setup to prevent precisely what is occuring. Why should we trust him to be the final arbitar of what programs are legal and which would be overstepping his bounds within the law when he and his team have shown such a knack for the creative justification of every questionable looking program they've enacted that has come to light?

quick success

[swissfondue (819240)]

So the US found a quick way to access international payment flows. I wonder about their "successes", which sound a lot like the "take our word for it, we know Saddam has chemical weapons". Also SWIFT, a seemingly international organization, has in fact confirmed it is controlled by the US by agreeing to pass all its data to the US. I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.

Re:quick success

[CaptainZapp (182233)]

I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.

I'm more wondering what the honchos of UBS and Credit Suisse (who have representatives in the board of SWIFT) where thinking while this little scheme was going along.

You see, breeching customer confidentiality [wikipedia.org] is protected by federal law in Switzerland and violating this penal code may draw jail time.

That doesn't mean that Swiss banks never provide foreign authorities with customer data, but such authorities must show that there's an ongoing investigation about a crime, or a felony. That's what actually pisses off a lot of foreign governments with stringent fiscal policies, since tax evasion is not a felony in Switzerland and is thus protected under the bank secrecy act.

If wholesale supplying of customer data to the US authorities is not a breech of this code, I don't know what is.

Mind you, that has nothing to do with the infamous Swiss number accounts so much beloved by bad authors. There are no anonymous bank accounts anymore in Switzerland and a numbered account only guarantees that your true identity is coded within the bank and only a few very high honchos know the true identity of the account owner.

Of course Credit Suisse (CSFB) as well as UBS are major players in the US' financial markets and they wouldn't want to piss the US authorities off; now would they?

Re:quick success

[FrankNputer (141316)]

Or, you could consider the 500 sarin and mustard gas shells recently disclosed

Um, don't you mean the pre-Gulf War shells that were found in 2003, reported on in 2004, and waved around last week in a poor attempt to justify the war in an election year? Just sayin'...

Re:quick success

[EasyTarget (43516)]

It's what he did with them that remains hard to hammer out, and that's what he was spending so much time and energy trying to hide from everyone, despite signing an agreement allowing full inspection.

Just a wild suggestion... Maybe he actually destroyed them?

He didn't want a war because he knew he'd end up dead.. as will hopefully soon happen. Actually destroying these weapons, which he had no realistic prospect of using without instant obliteration now he was no longer a US ally against Iran, would certainly have been in his best interests.

But I do not dispute his desire and willingness to make and use them.. nor his future intention to do so either! Just his practical ability.

PS: The '500' mustard and sarin shells (disclosed in 1999 [un.org], only wight ring prats call it recent, although the real figure is more like 650+) should be set against 50,000+ which the UN accepts were destroyed..

oh yeah and russia is so innocent?

[cheekyboy (598084)]

Jeez dude get a clue.

Russia isnt so nice and they hide things, they go the shit and 50megaton nukes.

Oh but because they have 1000s of them and subs we cant invade em coz we're toast.

Who sold the chemicals? That damn photo of RUmselfd shaking hands with Saddamn in the80s is so damn funny!!!

Btw, Rumselfd also was a director of a company that allowed/helped north korea with reactors and now dont want iran to have any.

Its a global scam, they just want all OIL resources.

FACE it people, OIL is the reason for the last 150years of human achievements. He who has >50% of its resources wins.

No matter how many lies, or deaths or billions or trillions spent, he who has it rules. Even if its part ownership or proxy.

Get a clue people. With out oil there wouldnt be so much plastics/food/power and hence people!!!!!!!!!!

Coal cant achieve that role.

Re:quick success

[elrous0 (869638)]

I always love that response: "We didn't find WMD's? Well then, he must have moved them." That's the perfect bulletproof argument. You can use it for unicorns too: "We haven't seen any? Well then, they must be hiding."

Mod me down all you want. It's still true.

-Eric

Re:quick success

[Zemran (3101)]

Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism,

This is more than a little revisionist as Saddam was a good ally of ours. There was no terrorist activity in Iraq until after we invaded.

cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad,

bs

and even to individual families of suicide bombers.

You may support the idea of punishing the parents for the crimes of the children but I do not. I think that his actions in compensating the victims of Israel's terrorist actions was honourable. I wish that there were more people that would stand up for the people against the state sponsored terrorists.

To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders,

Is that somehow different from us lobbing cruise missiles at him? You really do have some issues.

trying to annex Kuwait,

And when he asked if he could the US said 'we have no interest in that area'.... Maybe if he had been told 'NO' by his main ally he would not have done it..

Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil,"

This may be a tricky one for you but question number one - What political system was in place in Iraq in 1990? I'll give you a clue. they had just had an election. Yeah, they could only choose people that Saddam said were good enough but now they can only choose people that GW says are good enough, do you really think that the Iraqi people see that as different?

That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.

Your absurd rant went right off course at the end :D After Hitler declared war on the US it is understandable that the US defended itself by joining the allies when they invaded Germany. It is true that the US was the third largest force and therefore a main part in the invasion of Germany. That is a little different from attacking one of your main allies. We all knew that Saddam no longer had WMD and the intelligence forces made that fact clear.

The US did turn up late in WWII with the beer and pizza but no one holds it against them because they were welcome along, but keep it in context. The only one there that was ultruistic was Britain as they declared war on Germany because what Germany was doing was wrong. Russia was the main force (they had also been attacked by Germany like the US) that went, Britain was the second force and yes the US did turn up for the party. Read the facts and don't learn history from Hollywood. Russia was the only one that did not avoid the concentration camps as we all knew the logistical problems that would be caused when we arrived at the gates. That is why the German officers had all left without being captured as it was days before we went back to the camps.

And that was mod'ed +5?

[khasim (1285)]

Why bother watching Fox? Better perhaps to take advantage of the BBC's reporting. Take a moment and any of their coverage. It's hard not to notice the actual facts of chemical weapon use. Which, of course, rather requires the existence of the same.

Look at the YEAR in which they were used.

If Saddam had them 20 years ago, that does NOT make him a threat TODAY.

No one is saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons at any time in the past. We know he did. We were the ones who were helping him develop them for use in the Iraq/Iran war.

And your articles are rather long on descriptions of Saddam lounging by a pool in a speedo ... and rather short on facts about chemical weapons.

Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism, as is found in Iran.

Dude, Iraq fought Iran.

Iraq was a secular totalitarian state.

There was NO danger of them changing to a Theocracy while Saddam was alive.

So just leaving Saddam and the sanctions in place would have achieved your stated goal without the loss of a single US soldier's life.

That sort of retrograde, destabilizing influence on the entire middle east certainly does impact oil flow (for the entire world, in case you're not paying attention), and allowing it to thrive is unacceptable on a lot of levels, not just as it relates to oil.

If it's not about oil, then make the case without mentioning oil.

Because you cannot do so, without fantasy scenarios that Saddam's existance would have prevented, it is/was/will be about the oil.

And before you start mentioning Saddam as some sort of not-so-bad alternative to the extremist jihaddi types, remember that he was busy shipping (along with press releases!) cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even to individual families of suicide bombers.

So? No one is saying he was an angel. Just that he was not a threat to the United States of America or our allies.

Do not confuse "bad person" with "threat to the US".

To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders, trying to annex Kuwait, and so on.

Do you have some kind of calendar-phobia?

You keep bringing up actions from years before the last invasion. What he did in 1990 has no bearing on whether we should invade in 2003. There were THIRTEEN YEARS between those two events.

"For oil" is a tidy bit of sophistry, though, that must feel convenient.

I don't know about "feel convenient", but it certainly fits the established facts.

But the real issue with the oil is that it lies in a place where its value is being sought by medieval-minded theocratic crazies that use that single source of revenue to keep places like Iran running backwards from history.

And again you support the position that it was about the oil. Or, more exactly, about who controls the oil.

So, be as sarcastic/flippant as you want to be about it. The fact remains that you do not have a justification that does NOT involve the oil.

Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil," but not in the way you so cravenly describe.

Oil does not vote. Oil does not elect representatives. There is nothing noble about going to war for oil. Therefore, saying that the war was for oil cannot be "craven".

That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.

Only in your mind, only in your mind.

Germany was actively invading other countries and attacking our ally England.

Iraq had

.....And purcashing habits...

[nurb432 (527695)]

Not only do they know how much money you move, but by getting into the retail databases, they also know what ( and when, and where ) you are buying.

Just hope that what you bought today legally doesnt become 'questionable' ( or down right illegal ) tomrrow. You might find a knock on your door.

echo $FREEDOM

[delire (809063)]

It would be greatly appreciated by the Billions of us that don't live there if you Americans would do something about your current government.

America increasingly represents the antithesis of 'freedom' and personal liberty especially for those in other countries. They are innovators in the strategic reduction of civil rights, at home and elsewhere. Freedom is not a brand, it's a right and you don't have to be American to have it FFS.

Cheney's response

[mrogers (85392)]

Cheney's predictable response: anyone who criticises mass surveillance is helping terrorists [nytimes.com].

Re:Cheney's response

[TubeSteak (669689)]

The senator [Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee] said he was particularly troubled that the administration had expanded its Congressional briefings on the financial tracking program in recent weeks after having learned that The New York Times was making inquiries.

"Why does it take a newspaper investigation to get them to comply with the law?" the senator asked. "That's a big, important point."

Specter gets right down to the essentials.

The question isn't "Why are they running a secret program?"
It's "Why are they doind it without the proper oversight?"

Color me unsurprised

[l5rfanboy (977086)]

Does it fail to surprise anyone else that CNN and other major media (I mean, 'news') outlets aren't reporting on this? Then again, they're so busy reporting on Kidman and Urban's desires for a normal wedding, Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance rival dying, and Reese Witherspoon suing someone over a false pregnancy story (all on CNN.com). Who has time for this kind of news when there's all that out there! Such decisions!

I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.

NPR Interview

[HardCase (14757)]

The news program All Things Considered interviewed the undersecretary responsible for the program yesterday (6/24/06). The interviewer didn't really pull any punches and the answers were pretty interesting. I highly recommend going to NPR's web site and listening to it.

When asked what layers of security were in place to prevent misuse, the reply was that in order to perform a search, the analyst had to show that the individual or group being queried had been identified as having a potential terrorism link. That request had to be vetted by a supervisor, then by a representative from SWIFT. Then, when the query is performed, if no evidence is found, then the information is discarded at the analyst's level. A government auditing team reviews the information that is gleaned and a third party auditing team (from Booz Allen) audits the government.

The undersecretary said that they did remove an analyst earlier this year for abusing the system. The auditing system caught him.

The undersecretary also said that about 10% of the searches performed provided evidence of links to terrorist organizations. That, he said, was a very high rate compared to other intelligence methods.

For me, personally, if that's the way that the government is using the SWIFT database, I don't have a problem with it. If the queries are targeted, as opposed to a broad sweep, it strikes me as a legitimate use of an intelligence asset.

Interestingly enough, the general attitude of the security and privacy experts that ATC interviewed was fairly positive about the program.

-h-

Re:A message from the right

[EGSonikku (519478)]

Uh oh you caught me!

You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.

Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad. :-(

Can we go back to blaming communism?

Re:Not used to track individuals

[Oswald (235719)]

Well, from TFA:

After identifying a suspect, Levey said, "you can do a search, and you can determine whom he sent money to, and who sent money to him."

"The way the SWIFT data works, you would have all kinds of concrete information -- addresses, phone numbers, real names, account numbers, a lot of stuff we can really work with, the kind of actionable information that government officials can really follow up on," Levey said.

Doesn't sound like purely institution-related data. And this from the "undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence," whatever the hell that is.

Re:Not used to track individuals

[glennrrr (592457)]

If you follow the links in the Instapundit posting you get to this description [scsuscholars.com] of the SWIFT system.

A SWIFT consists of a one-page document containing the name and code of the originating bank, the date and time, the address and code of the receiving bank, the name and internal code of the officer initiating the transmission, the names and numbers of the accounts involved in the transfer, a description of the asset being transferred, the MT category of the transmission, and acceptable, standardized phrases as described above.

Re:Not used to track individuals

[Alsee (515537)]

What has not been stressed is that SWIFT is not used for individuals. It is used for processing money transfers, stock transfers and bond transfers from companies, governments, banks, insurance companies and NGO's.

WAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's hysterical. Absolutely hysterical It's amazing just how far some people can warp their perception of reality when they so desperately need to perceive reality as supporting some political position.

In related news, the also recently exposed federal phone wiretapping program is never used for individuals. Those wiretaps are used for the recording of audio communications between phone companies, and logging the associated source and destination phone numbers records on each voice communication.

If someone argues that the current federal program is legal and that it is a a good and acceptable activitity in trying to persue terrorists... well that is a perfectly rational arguement with which one can argue the factual truth or falsity of the claim that it is a legal, and with which one can reasonably agree or dissagree with the oppinion of it being good and acceptable.

However when someone tries to argue that this new program is only about companies and banks, and tries to suggest that it has no impact or relevance on individuals... well that is just plain DELUSIONAL reasoning.

-

Re:seriously

[Oswald (235719)]

I sympathize completely with your view on this, but I can't help pointing out the irony in your post. Invading the privacy of non-U.S. citizens isn't even an issue here. So what you say, from a (U.S.) legal standpoint (and, sorry to confirm your suspicions, the point of view of much of the citizenry), is exactly backwards. We're NOT supposed to do this to ourselves, but are quite free to do it to anybody else.

On the other hand, I hardly think this makes us unique. Stop for a second to ask yourself if the British or the French intelligence services would have any qualms about examining the financial records of American citizens (or each others' citizens). Laughable. Not even an issue. It's only makes news here because we have an article in our Constitution that theoretically protects us from our unjustified snooping, and Americans keep getting caught in the dragnet. Do Europeans have similar articles? I'm sorry to say I don't know, but I've been told they do not.

Re:seriously

[EasyTarget (43516)]

Privacy is controlled on a national level here in yrp, with the EU 'human Rights' legislation as a sort of umbrella over that. Levels of legal protection vary and so do levels of compliance/enforcement. But in Theory every countries Spook squad looks harder at foreign threats than at domestic ones. In Practice the politicians and the spooks are totally paranoid about domestic threats to their power and spend huge resources spying on their own citizens (and I think the US is going the same way, the Homeland Security BrownHats are now the third largest US gvt. department.)

The advantage the US has is it's constitution, which is something I admire a lot. I think it is interesting that your administration is trying to change it (gay marriage). Is this because they want to get people into the 'habit' of changing it in response to perceived 'threats to the American Way(tm)'; so that it can then be changed for 'the war on terror' (think more spooks with more powers, and probably stuff to buy off corporations).

The beauty of your constitution (apart from being drafted on hemp paper :-) is that it is short and to-the-point. They tried to get a 'constitution' passed here, hungreds of pages of waffle designed to promote the intrests of beaurocrats. It was so bad that even the French voters rejected it. Personally I will never vote in favour of any constitution longer than 2 A4 pages of 12pt type. And even then only if it takes power -from- the state, as much as giving power -to- it.

Re: And the worst is...

[Black Parrot (19622)]

> Cheney doesnt even have the grace to be emberassed about it.

If he's not embarassed to argue in favor of torture, why should a little thing like this faze him?

Not taking it sitting down

[Tony (765)]

So far it seems though, and I say this as a foreign observer, that America is taking it all sitting down.

We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.

"C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"

And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.

They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.

So, no. We're not taking it sitting down. We can't sit down. Our asses are sore.

The really amazing thing...

[YesIAmAScript (886271)]

Is when Bush does something like this, people come out of the woodwork to explain how the intentions are good.

It doesn't matter if the administration's intentions are good. The point is we have a court system and separation of powers for a reason. And it is the law of the land.

No matter how good one's intentions are, if they violate this (by not getting actual subpoenas), they're comminting a grave crime, and creating a situation where one branch (in this case the one headed by one man) can begin to take control of the actions of the entire government.

It's a constitutional issue. And this is another egregious violation of it. This is beyond absurdity now. We the people created this government, we should have to put up with it not following the restrictions we set down upon it. These people should be ejected from office.